• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

PNG Image Format Gets Native Animation and HDR in Version 3.0

PNG is equal to BMP quality without just literally wasting diskspace for no reason though.
Is it? I can't remember where, but there was an article I read discussing the techspecs of the format and it stated that PNG, though close, was inferior to BMP. It gave the technical reasons why and they seemed reasonable.
 
Is it? I can't remember where, but there was an article I read discussing the techspecs of the format and it stated that PNG, though close, was inferior to BMP. It gave the technical reasons why and they seemed reasonable.
It's a lossless RGB stream, I really don't see how it couldn't be equal in quality. It's a little slower to decode but that was relevant in the 486 era, not at all with todays cpus.
 
Last edited:
It's a lossless RGB stream, I really don't see how it couldn't be equal in quality. It's a little slower to decode but that was relevant in the 486 era, not at all with todays cpus.
Fair enough. Still prefer progressive coded JPGs..
 
Why should we continue to expand on dead-end formats?
PNG uses the generic and obsolete Deflate algorithm.

It's time to move on to AVIF (or if there are better alternatives?).
IMO websites should only use 3 (or 4) formats:

- For legacy support use Jpegli encoded JPEGs and Gifsickle encoded Gifs.
- Widest support (for now) and good low quality (low BPP) is avif (both static and animated) ideally encoded using the IQ Tune option in libavif.
- Highest quality and features is JXL for transparency, progressive decoding and animation, although browser support is hampering it big time (doesn't help that low BPP is more desireable by most websites so that's the appealing choice).
 
Fair enough. Still prefer progressive coded JPGs..
Hey man thats part of what makes the PC great, choice, so as long as people don't start posting litetal .bmp spam not going to judge anyones format beyond "great, enjoy." :)
 
Had some example comparisons, but apparently AVIF uploads don't work on forums atm. On the AV1 and codec yeah hopefully, but for now it still needs to gain a better footing as a standard like even MS Paint doesn't allow AVIF export yet though it can import AVIF images fine and pretty common issue with software atm non existent or partially supported for the time being. :oops:
Sure, if it's for comparing quality of lossy compression.
If it's for comparing size of lossless files, you can just tell us the results.

Paint supports saving HEIC, but not AVIF or JPEG XL.
But considering how long it took MS to add PNG support in the first place, I wouldn't expect them to support the updated PNG spec anytime soon, perhaps in Windows 15 in 2038?

Not that I think that's a problem though, as anyone can still read AVIF files, and if you're making them, you're not working with MS Paint. Pretty much "anything" support AVIF at this point, incl. Photoshop, Lightroom, GIMP, Darktable, Krita, Paint.NET, ImageMagick, etc.

IMO websites should only use 3 (or 4) formats:
- For legacy support use Jpegli encoded JPEGs and Gifsickle encoded Gifs.
- Widest support (for now) and good low quality (low BPP) is avif (both static and animated) ideally encoded using the IQ Tune option in libavif.
- Highest quality and features is JXL for transparency, progressive decoding and animation, although browser support is hampering it big time (doesn't help that low BPP is more desireable by most websites so that's the appealing choice).
I don't know how old browsers you would recommend people use, but anything except Edge has supported AVIF for years. So I would say anything that's probably is used online supports AVIF.

Gif is a horrible format I wish was abandoned back in 1995.

Lossless compression with transparency is very relevant for anything GUI related (incl. applications and games).

For photos, those who don't need any kind of raw format or do any future heavy editing, will probably do fine with lossy compression like JPEG. But it is worth noting that compression size isn't everything, as different format results in different kinds of compression artifacts;
Some years ago I looked into using JPEG vs. WEBP (and probably others) for textures. It turns out that for ground textures, the compression artifacts of JPEG kind of works in its favor, as it blends in with the graininess of the texture up to a point (as long as you can't see the blockyness). I don't remember now the quality level I considered the sweet-spot (but I probably have it somewhere in my projects). When it comes to smoother surfaces, and probably normal maps etc., blurry artifacts are usually more desirable than grainy/blocky artifacts.
 
Back
Top